I wish the article had her talking about the trials she faced organizing that! Or perhaps about why she thought it was needed and what she felt she did better–you know, things that give us more insight to her as a person who solves problems.

It reads like “docker kubermetes docker, a couple observations about open source, generic advice, plug for help for docker or kubermetes”. She seems like a perfectly nice person, but she doesn’t seem that much more noteworthy than any of a thousand other open-source developers paid to work on infrastructure projects. The interview doesn’t really cover anything personal about her, it doesn’t have her saying anything we haven’t heard a thousand times before or at least going in-depth on a story to explain her advice. The systemd->butts transform was amusing, to be sure, but otherwise why?

I hate to be this, well, mean, but shouldn’t we be using the person tag for people of, well, note?

~

And yes, this is kind of a core problem with the person tag. This person isn’t that interesting–given the information in the submission–to me, for example, but I could probably pick some alternate submissions that might be equally uninteresting (a person I know who is a greybeard at GOOG and has some coolprojects.

But where to draw the line without being petty? What makes articles under people good articles (instead of PR puff pieces)? Therein lies the rub.

I think the problem here is that the interview doesn’t really say enough to convince someone that she’s worth interviewing. If you know her, you get it. If you don’t, then… we’ll, this isn’t helping, unfortunately.

Clearly not “without question”, right? Perhaps in the Docker/Kubermetes realm, but the article itself really doesn’t give much information about her, why she’s a big deal, or what she’s done. And that sucks, because people here are pointing out waaaay more interesting accomplishments she’s had.

But again, the problem with the person tag is that you and I can both draft up a list of at least a half-dozen devs that are “of note” and yet the other one of us will go “huh?”. And in a few decades time, probably none of the people on those lists will be remembered.

The person tag is for stories about people, not profiles. A link to one of her talks, an in-depth or technical interview, or any one of a number of her blog posts would not have been flagged as off-topic.

edit: I’ll also point out that in general the person tag is used alongside another tag. Cases of “person” alone are generally of some historical significance, an interview, or a death announcement; all of which are more substantive and/or better discussion topics than a simple profile.

I’m with you. The title alone means nothing to me. I thought it was going to be some sort of memorial when I first saw it. But there isn’t really much of any content there. There’s nothing technical in it. I don’t understand what we’re meant to get from it.

It fits HN more because that site is full of fluff like this, but I wouldn’t expect it here.